Sadly no Don, the skull was a dental anatomical aid that was used to demonstrate X-Ray machines. There never was a jaw.

I've already given it above Aero. As I created it, I wouldn't describe my thoughts as an interpretation, more a statement of intent.

Pretentious? Not really, art can be decoded and in fact is decoded in great detail by those who know. I don't claim to be an artist, but I am aware that there is more to the composition of the truly classic paintings than just a pretty picture.

It's probably a very big subject, but there's no reason why we can't start to think about such things as we have tried to do in this thread.

The image is quite purple in the mist, but whether or not that is accurate who can say apart from your good self.

It depends on what you want to convey. As you can change the colour you can convey different moods by doing so. Sunrise colours can be quite different to sunset colours. As mist is most likely at those times, mid-day colour might look strange.

What should be possible is to shoot an image that actually reflects what the colour really was. This can be quite accurately done by shooting JPEG with Daylight white balance, or very precisely done by using a custom white balance. You can do this after the event with a RAW capture.

Your image makes for an attractive picture as it is.

Thanks Don. Yes, I will revisit this.

Of course, part of the problem with a still life is that there are an infinite number of variables, so almost anything is possible. The art lies in being selective, depending upon what the required outcome is.

I suppose the viewer could be guided towards the desired interpretation by a suitable title. A title will give clues and direct, rather like some of the comments in this thread did. It seemed to me that once a line of thought had been generated, it made it more difficult to find an alternative interpretation.

If Chris is lucky, then so am I, so is Sue, so are brother/sister-in-law, in fact lots of photographers we know as well, including many professionals.

Still, we digress, and no doubt we all act as we find things.

Well thanks for the comments and critiques. It's quite interesting how the perception varies from the intent.

My original idea was:
Our friend Janice translated the imnage as:
To answer the question about lighting. The still life is laid out on a large piece of black sateen and the lighting is from a large evenly lit window. Not too different to using a very large softbox. A second window acts as a fill light. I just love natural light.

This was an exercise in perception. It seems nobody saw what I intended, so I shall think about that. Maybe the concept was too complex to even have a chance of deciphering it? Or maybe the execution of the idea was too open to alternatives?

You might be thinking of resolution alternatives. I don't remember if the K-r has these, but there could be 4:3 and 16:9 options. Look under the option to select the number of pixels.

Thanks so far, I'll answer the questions later on if that's OK, it will give anyone else a chance to find some alternative ideas.

You could get so many options offered by various members that it would end up being very confusing. If you have your mind tending towards 300mm, then that's where you should go. Option B then.

Adding more lenses later as the need arises. After a while where you want to go next should become apparent because of any shots you find unworkable with your initial kit.

The following image was made with something specific in mind as a message, but showing it to others for comment showed that totally different interpreatations could be put on it. Just out of interest, please interpret/critique the image and later I'll tell you what the original intent was. It might reveal something about how we all weigh up and view an image.